About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 7, Us 6, Mel Gar 4, Walker 3, Lee 2, Rosemary 2, Isabelle 1, Sweeney 1, Rosemary Boske 1, Ms. Shaw 1, Alex Fong 1, Sonya 1, Carla 1, Mccray 1, Steve 1, Mccarthy 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    December 19, 2012
    9:30 - 10:00am PST  

9:30am
filed a suit four days later without checking any allegationses in the lawsuit supporting them, and they were totally false. and, anyway, there is a push by this department to aid these people. they're including my building in the lawsuit because, frankly, they want to help [inaudible]. all i have to say about this is this is an abuse of power and it's abuse of the public trust. you know, when i look at these papers, i'm a citizen and i think, oh, they must be right because they're part of the building department. but then i know like they're destroying records that i ever completed cases. they shouldn't be destroyed at the housing department. they have an excuse down here that they should still be there in the housing department.
9:31am
and frankly, i was extremely shocked. it took me over -- it took me almost eight months to clear the items. also, i have complained about rosemary boske to ed sweeney three years ago about the noe street situation with the back staircase. and at that time he went and asked rosemary if she was targeting me and she denied it. frankly, i think there's kind of a secret contempt because i think she takes advantage of the aboveboard nature of the building department. all she has to do is just deny it. so, believe me, i've been a target for seven years and i can't take it any more. this is the most frightening thing that's happened to me. i mean, it was scary enough to
9:32am
have a fire in the building and have an injury and then have this on top of it. anyway. i'm really frustrated. >> ms. shaw, very briefly, can you give us any inclination on what you're trying to do to correct anything here? we're working on it. i'm working on it with mr. [speaker not understood]. we're getting a lot done. which met with the city attorney yesterday. it was a very productive meeting. and you know, we're getting actually quite a bit done. and, so, the fire damage building, a lot of the pud problems on that building are
9:33am
being corrected. * they were corrected over the years. i had a contested case. i lost over a million dollars because of that. it was a struggle. i mean it was one struggle after another. i had a lawyer, david [speaker not understood], little colorful. my bankruptcy attorney is now in jail for first degree murder. and then i walk into the housing department after i close that case. so, i've been through one horrible situation after another. in my life, but i can't stand this any more with housing, i really can't * . when i came to see you, you asked rosemary if she was targeting me. i came a couple days later and you told me that. then you asked me was i going to sue for harassment, and i was shocked. i didn't even know that possibility existed. so, i'm not a litigious [inaudible]. i just, i turn my buildings
9:34am
into condos. i'm trying to -- i inherited a family business, it was started by my parents here in san francisco in 1952. you know, i just love buildings. so, that's my -- what i'm doing with my life. >> commissioner walker? >> so, we are here because there are outstanding notices of violation. yeah. >> so, i have heard you admit that there are issues that are listed that need to be resolved that you're working on. the issue with our department is that this goes back a long ways. and in the meantime, one of your properties actually caught fire. and our job here is to make sure that buildings are safe and habitable.
9:35am
so, my feeling is -- you know, looking at the pictures and reading the documents, that our housing department is doing what it's supposed to do in trying to resolve outstanding violations that affect the habitability. you just admitted that the issues listed, you are working on. so, you know, i think that ultimately i would want to know what has taken you so long. it's not an answer that you've had other issues. what i've tried to explain is after that incident in 2006 with isabelle going all over my building on noe, i -- >> it's her job. yes. i realize that i was targeted at that point and i'm afraid of these people. i came here asking for time,
9:36am
but i would really want this situation to change. i'm afraid of this -- these people and this department. and that's a bad relationship. [speaker not understood] and that's not good. i would like to -- i told them when i went in there after the bankruptcy, i want to clear my properties. so, you know, i do want to get everything, but, you know, i can't stand the bullying. they're frightening. to read something like this and find these cases that i already cleared included in these things, that's scary to me. these people are powerful in a public position and it's just scary. >> it's their job to make sure -- >> no, but it's not their job to destroy records and include old cases in here. >> if they haven't been cleared, that's what we're looking at. they were cleared, though. >> that's not what it says here. okay.
9:37am
there was a revocation order and there are supposed to be two more and i'm looking for my papers because the tapes were destroyed downstairs, okay. there are two more that were already cleared and now these inflammatory items are being included to help people who are filing lawsuits to say, oh, she has horrible properties, let's take her properties. it's just an abuse of the public trust to do this. these situations don't -- aren't there any more, okay. >> it looks to me like they are. see, you're reading. that's abuse -- you're the public, you're abusing your trust. you're reading this on the paper so you think it must be true. but i've showed you the revocation, okay. that's city hall. i guess that doesn't count, right? >> it doesn't pertain to the issue that is in front of us. >> it does. >> commissioner mel gar?
9:38am
>> you know, i feel like i want to put this into a context a little bit. being a landlord is a business. a businesslike running a restaurant or any other for profit enterprise. and you do it according to rules. and i realize that you want to be in the business. but, you know, we have codes for a reason. because people are doing the job that they're supposed to do, that the taxpayers hire them to do doesn't mean that they are abusing the public trust. so, we do have in front of us pictures. we have records. we have all sorts of evidence. you are telling us that things aren't so and you presented very little evidence to the contrary. so, i'm just wondering -- you are a very wealthy woman. you own a lot of real estate, one of the most expensive areas in san francisco.
9:39am
>> i also owe $4 million. >> you have resources. you own significantly more than that. so, i am just wondering -- there is also rent control. >> yes. and you own assets that would allow you to fix the problems in at least some of the buildings. your bankruptcy was 7 years ago. you have options. so, i'm just wondering why it is that you think that you're being victimized by this department when, you know, we're just following the rules. well, i explained to you what happened 7 years ago and i have been targeted. and i do hold [speaker not understood] responsible. she could change it at any point. >> it is her job to protect those tenants. i don't know why she came down and screamed at me like that. and she never checked to see if alex fong went and did that, went and made that inspection. i'm just frustrated and i need some change here, you know.
9:40am
i can't have -- i need, you know, an understanding of this situation. that really just can't go on. for that toxic atmosphere to change. that's why i'm here really. it's potential, hopefully turning point in my life. >> commissioner mar? >> so, here's what it seems that we have to deal with. aside from what you feel is the atmosphere is that if you say you resolve some of the n.o.v.s, we need to see some paperwork about which violations have been resolved. the other thing is if you want more time and a lot of appellants come before us saying they need more time, we need to know that you've pulled or applied for certain permits to get some work done. so, you should have those
9:41am
things. i do. >> well, you need to show it to us. i mean, you need to say, here's the application for an electrical plumbing whatever permit. through the permits -- >> you should have copies. i don't have it. but [speaker not understood], i did give him the recent plumbing -- recent building permit for the floor of the stairwell. so, he's seen that. i hope [inaudible]. >> so, those are the things we need to deal with. we need to see that there's some movement or that you've done some of the work. if you say things have been listed, maybe we could ask that when the staff comes back up. but we need to see that you've applied or started -- [speaker not understood] permits. all those back stairs, everything is fixed.
9:42am
there are a couple of handrails inside the apartment that mr. [speaker not understood] has to [speaker not understood]. he can verify that the back staircase is totally -- >> so, maybe we could find out, yeah. >> should we move to the department rebuttal? you'll have one more chance to come back. thanks. >> is there a question? i didn't hear. as far as rebuttal, what i've already said, there's a lot of record there. we've done a tremendous amount of research on the permits that have been filed such as the electrical permits she's talking about. what we found it was for the 3r conversion and not for the heaters or there will be a note there were calculations for some of the heaters but there is not a permit to -- legalize heaters that she already put in for all the heaters in that
9:43am
particular building and we're talking about the 249tion street building. so, it's that kind of pattern, one thing after another. we have spent a tremendous amount of hours, the staff, working with her to try and walk her through this process. we're now -- those notices that were before you started the issues in 2009. we're several years after that. and this process started even before that with notices of violation that were issued before that, that she never resolved. so, it's a revolving door. nothing ever really gets resolved. now, are there some notices now that are getting resolved? yes. because we filed lawsuits to have her comply. now there is some movement and hopefully that will help us get final resolution, which is what we would like to do with all three of these properties. but do we believe because of the history before you that this warrants an additional extension of time? no, we do believe that an order should be issued, recorded on the property so that anybody that tries to move into this building or whatever has ample notice. that's the way process is
9:44am
supposed to work. so, we do believe that the hearing officers were right in what they did, give the gravity and the extent of the information that you have and that they had on these two properties and that no additional time should be given and that process is an important code enforcement tool that is consistent with everything else that you have before you. >> commissioner lee? >> rosemary, could you tell us what are some of the outstanding items still that need to be fixed so we get an idea of what's left to do? >> [inaudible] field inspector steve has been on the site and he can quickly give you a running list of the things that are ongoing. >> well, not ongoing, but what's left to do as of now. >> sure, 24th street, number of violations about roof leaks,
9:45am
electric heaters installed in six units without permits. window sashes in disrepair. missing handrails or handrails installed improperly. and the roofing, there's several layers of roof. i haven't been up in a roof. i have some pictures. there's going to be at least three layers in certain areas. there's probably four or five or -- and the composition of the roofing is so worn out that it's actually frayed. so, and there are no permits forever having reroofed. so, i would expect that the original roof, the wood shingle roof is there. and, again, there's at least three layers of roof and i would guess more like four or five.
9:46am
>> through the chair, inspector, when you itemized those items, they're not huge dollar amount items in the picture of -- >> that's right. the roofing is certainly -- >> probably the highest. yeah. so, they're not really high. the other question i have for you, have you ever met the contractor out there? >> i don't believe i have. >> has ever been a contractor assigned -- >> she's had -- she has people who work for her. they have never been introduced to me as contractors. i view them more as laborers. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner mel gar. >> do you know if there are any children under 6 living in any of these buildings? >> i don't know, but i don't believe so. >> okay, thank you. >> rosemary, do you know the cause of the fire? >> of the property that's now before you, the 3300 block, i don't know exactly what caused the fire.
9:47am
there were open violations at that building, which included smoke detectors and an illegal unit down on the ground floor area of that building and we did issue an emergency order at that location. >> no more questions for the department. appellant's rebuttal. [inaudible] electrical permits and the other permits, there was also another hearing on june 21st and they said there was -- there were no permits for the back staircase. i did get a permit in 2010. and it was completed. that was for the back staircase. and also the repeated violation
9:48am
notices about the heaters, they said they couldn't find any permit. i went to the permit section and found the permits within two minutes. they were to comply with the 3r report for the condo conversion. and i had the electrical inspection -- you have to get a physical inspection, and they -- ah, let's see. for the condo conversions, you have to do that. , and so, the electrical inspectors came out and they, you know, say on their reports what they want and then you comply with them. i had the electrical on both buildings. i was able to find it right away. so, they didn't spend a lot of time. for my experience, they don't spend a lot of time and i'm
9:49am
always accused of not having permits. i have to present them. and as i said, it's a very toxic relationship and i really have to have that changed. i'm 62 years old and, you know, i just can't take it any more. that's what i'm hoping for, some sort of change, but sounds like it's not going to [inaudible]. >> so, you say you do have permits for the heaters. yes. >> do you have them with you? i have -- these are from my 3825 through 29 [inaudible]. 38 31 through 35. this was 2009. this was for 2009. i have my -- did i give you my clcs? i don't seem to have them.
9:50am
>> yes. oh, okay. that's the revocation. [inaudible] comply with building and electrical and plumbing. so, there's conflicts between these departments and, you know, according to the building department, they passed it for the code violation, they were corrected. so, there's conflicts. >> commissioners, any questions? thank you.
9:51am
anybody care to make a motion or ask more questions? commissioner walker. >> i think that the conditions of these buildings is -- makes these uninhabitable even though people are living in them. and the issues of uncommitted electric heaters, those type of things, make it a real risk for fire. so, i would like to make a motion to uphold the department's recommendation, the abatement, and maybe allow for 30 days to take out permits and resolve these issues. >> i second that motion.
9:52am
>> so, i just want to clarify what commissioner walker said. so, could you flesh out -- you're basically saying that you find that -- the v. laytions that the department has issued on these properties are habitability issues, and make the buildings unsafe to occupy, even though they are occupied. and the potential risk for fire, the mold that we see, and the evident presented all are health risks for the people living in them. therefore, i believe that it is imperative for us to support the department's action of abatement and -- and allow for the maximum, i would, of 30 days to take out the permits and cure these notices of violation.
9:53am
* >> okay. so, if i could just clarify, then, you're moving to uphold the order of abatement? >> yes. uphold the order of abatement. allowing 30 days to complete the work based on your finding that the evidence as presented by dbi supports the director's order of abatement as i issued it? >> yes. that's correct. >> can i ask a point of information, if i may? is the motion that -- to issue a 30-day order of abatement? >> yes. >> and is that for agenda items 1 through 5? >> 1 through 5. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> call a vote, sonya. >> is there any public comment on the item?
9:54am
>> none. >> seeing none, call the roll call. on the motion -- >> do you have a second? >> commissioner mel gar seconded it. president clench? >> yes. >> vice president mel gar? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes, i believe 30 days is fair because the type of violations left are not long and large items. we should be able to take care of it in 30* days, so, yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> the motion carries and the order of abatement is upheld. *
9:55am
>> item d, general public comment. is there any general public comment on regarding the abatement appeals board? >> seeing none. >> seeing none, item e, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> we are now adjourned at 9:55 a.m. we'll take about a ten-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission.
9:56am
9:57am
>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed
9:58am
this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to
9:59am
stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to